ATEG Archives

November 1996

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:50:31 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
>The key part of this this definition is the term "function."  My impression is
>that "quasi-modals" are a category because they perform some of the semantic
>functions of true modals: "have to" has a meaning very similar to "must" and
>"be able to" has a meaning very similar to "can."
>
>I think Burkhard makes a very good point that syntactically the quasi-
>modals have none of the characteristics of true modals.  This is very easy
>to demonstrate.  True modals, I believe, have inherent tense.  Thus, they
>do not take the agreement -s (a tense marker) and they never occur in
>non-finite constructions.
>
>     1) I want to be able to explain grammar better to my students.
>     2) *I want to can explain grammar better to my students.
>
>     3) Having to leave early, the student sat by the door.
>     4) *Musting to leave early, the student sat by the door.
>
>Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University, [log in to unmask]
 
 
Bob,
I agree that quasi-modals are not quite the same as true modals, hence the
name.  But I'm not sure that you've easily proven for a fact that they have
NONE of the characteristics of true modals.  Simply showing a couple of
ways in which they differ is not absolute proof, especially since the
definition of a modal is not based on inherent tense.  It's like saying,
sort of anyhow, that a noun is something that takes a plural form, and of
course there are many nouns that don't.
 
We probably are not really disagreeing.  I think quasi-modals could easily
warrant their own status as being different from true modals, just as
pronouns and nouns are commonly treated as seaprate classes despite their
similiarities (especially with function).  And obviously part of our
problem is trying to use grammatical terminology and a traditional taxonomy
for grammar that nevery fully account for all the complex and frequently
weird constructions we see in English.
 
Larry Beason,Director
English Composition Program
Dept. of English
Eastern Washington University
Cheney WA 99004
[log in to unmask]
 
WAC Page: http://ewu66649.ewu.edu/WAC.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2